The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1887-03-09

iect. LII he dlSapproVes q pi. NC y. .oo
return it with his objection, but II ne
approves, he is to sign 1t and need never
communicate with either house on the
subject. The finishing act by which
bill is transformed into a law is the
Governors approval, as shown oy ms
signing, and that may be as long as ne
has the bill in his hands tor his olheiai
action. So long as he may return II
with his objection he may convert tue
bill into q law by his approval ana sign.
ing. So long as he may disapproye ana
return the bill with his objections, ne
may assent to the expressed VIII OF the
two Houses, and as Governor unite
with the Legislature in passing OH
into a law.
Such is the obvious scheme OF the
constitution. Its provisions are so PLAIN
as to exclude interpretation Argument
cannot make them palmer. The opinion
in Hdrdee q. Gibbs rests on the errone-
Gus assumption that because the Gover-
nor in signing a bill performs leglsia
tive act he must do it during the session
of the Legislature. Whatever the nature
or proper designation of his act IN refer
ence to bills passed by both Houses anu
presented to him, he acts independently
as Governor in pursuance OF the consul
tutional provision, and nothing III the
constitution requires or suggests that
his performance of his constitutional
duty in acting with reference TO bills
presented to him shall be performed
while the Legislature Is in session, but
the contrary is plainly suggested by the
constitution, and the assertion that ne
cannot sign a bill in vacation Is unwar-
ranted by anything in the language OF
that instrument or in the nature OF the
duty to be performed by the Governor
as a component part of the law-maklng
power.
Our view is abundantly supported by
the reasoning of the following cases:
STATE q. Pagan % La. An, $40.
People o. Bol0en, 80 Barb, "a.
Same case, q \. Y, 5l7.
,Seuen Hickory q. Ellery, l03, U. 5, 423.
Even without such support we should
feel constrained by the unmistakable
language of the constitution to override
the former decision.
The Governor was authorized to sign
the bill in vacation as he did, and it
thereby became an act of the Legisla-
ture. But this action of mandamus is
premature. By the terms of the act
approved August, 1886, an election is to
be ordered and held in August mex, i. e.,
August, 1887, for the act speaks from
the date of its approval. 1t is not to be
assumed, and on that assumption to
base a judicial proceeding, that the
body charged with a duty under this
act will not perform it at the proper
time. A presumption must be INDUCED
that duty will be performed. 4BirnIed.
MARY V. WERNER,
SALLIE J. WERNER.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Mon
roe county. Hon. J. w. Buchanan,
Judge.
Houston & Reynolds, for the appel
liant.
Sykes & Bristow, for the appellee.
Mary A Werner brought this action
for damages against Sallie j. Werner for
SANDER. The declaration alleges that
the defendant testified against plaintiff
in a cause before the chancery court in
which plaintiff was seeking alimopy
from her husband, Geo. z. Werner; that
the testimony complained of and set out
in the declaration was false; that it was
given in malice and not in good faith as
witness; and that the words t'from
their construction and common acaepta-
ton are considered as insults and lead
to violence and breaches of the peace"
To this the defendant demurred on the
ground that witness in a cause Is alb
solutely privileged from an action of
SANDER or libel for anything sworn to
as such. The chancellor sustained the
demurrer, and the plaintiff appealed.
Section 1904 Code of 1880, provides that
call words which, from their usual con-
struction and common aceeptatiOn, are
considered as insults, and lead to vio-
lence and breaches of the peace, shall
hereafter be actionable; and no plea,
exception or demurrer, shall be sus-
tanned, in any court within this State,
to preclude jury from passing thereon,
who are hereby declared to be the sole
judges of the damages sustained; pro-
vided, that nothing herein contained,
shall be construed to deprive the several
courts of this State of the powers of
granting new trials, as in other cases.
CAMPBELL, j., delivered the opinion of
the Court.
The immunity of witness in Judi
cial proceeding from liability to action
for SANDER is not affected by sec. 1904
of the Code. Justice and the cause of
good government would suffer if it were
otherwise, and it is inconceivable that
the Legislature intended by the enact
ment of said section to inhict a blow
on Justice and good government"
affirmed.